The Economist | Page 9

Soc. Or take, again, the instance of two farmers engaged in cultivating
farms[5] as like as possible. The one had never done asserting that
agriculture has been his ruin, and is in the depth of despair; the other
has all he needs in abundance and of the best, and how acquired?--by
this same agriculture.
[5] {georgias}. See Hartman, "An. Xen." p. 193. Hold. cf. Plat. "Laws,"
806 E. Isocr. "Areop." 32.
Yes (Critobulus answered), to be sure; perhaps[6] the former spends
both toil and money not simply on what he needs, but on things which
cause an injury to house alike and owner.
[6] Or, "like enough in the one case the money and pains are spent,"
etc.
Soc. That is a possible case, no doubt, but it is not the one that I refer to;

I mean people pretending they are farmers, and yet they have not a
penny to expend on the real needs of their business.
Crit. And pray, what may be the reason of that, Socrates?
Soc. You shall come with me, and see these people also; and as you
contemplate the scene, I presume you will lay to heart the lesson.
Crit. I will, if possibly I can, I promise you.
Soc. Yes, and while you contemplate, you must make trial of yourself
and see if you have wit to understand. At present, I will bear you
witness that if it is to go and see a party of players performing in a
comedy, you will get up at cock-crow, and come trudging a long way,
and ply me volubly with reasons why I should accompany you to see
the play. But you have never once invited me to come and witness such
an incident as those we were speaking of just now.
Crit. And so I seem to you ridiculous?[7]
[7] Or, "a comic character in the performance." Soc. "Not so comic as
you must appear to yourself (i.e. with your keen sense of the
ludicrous)."
Soc. Far more ridiculous to yourself, I warrant. But now let me point
out to you another contrast: between certain people whose dealing with
horses has brought them to the brink of poverty, and certain others who
have found in the same pursuit the road to affluence,[8] and have a
right besides to plume themselves upon their gains.[9]
[8] Or, "who have not only attained to affluence by the same pursuit,
but can hold their heads high, and may well pride themselves on their
thrift."
[9] Cf. Hom. "Il." xii. 114, {ippoisin kai okhesphin agallomenos}, et
passim; "Hiero," viii. 5; "Anab." II. vi. 26.
Crit. Well, then, I may tell you, I see and know both characters as well
as you do; but I do not find myself a whit the more included among
those who gain.
Soc. Because you look at them just as you might at the actors in a
tragedy or comedy, and with the same intent--your object being to
delight the ear and charm the eye, but not, I take it, to become yourself
a poet. And there you are right enough, no doubt, since you have no
desire to become a playright. But, when circumstances compel you to
concern yourself with horsemanship, does it not seem to you a little
foolish not to consider how you are to escape being a mere amateur in

the matter, especially as the same creatures which are good for use are
profitable for sale?
Crit. So you wish me to set up as a breeder of young horses,[10] do you,
Socrates?
[10] See "Horsemanship," ii. 1.
Soc. Not so, no more than I would recommend you to purchase lads
and train them up from boyhood as farm-labourers. But in my opinion
there is a certain happy moment of growth whuch must be seized, alike
in man and horse, rich in present service and in future promise. In
further illustration, I can show you how some men treat their wedded
wives in such a way that they find in them true helpmates to the joint
increase of their estate, while others treat them in a way to bring upon
themselves wholesale disaster.[11]
[11] Reading {e os pleista}, al. {e oi pleistoi} = "to bring about disaster
in most cases."
Crit. Ought the husband or the wife to bear the blame of that?
Soc. If it goes ill with the sheep we blame the shepherd, as a rule, or if
a horse shows vice we throw the blame in general upon the rider. But in
the case of women, supposing the wife to have received instruction
from her husband and yet she delights in wrong-doing,[12] it may be
that the wife is justly held to blame; but supposing he has never tried to
teach her the first principles of "fair and